[RenegadeRows]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...nei/index.html

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, said on Monday the Islamic Republic had decided to press ahead with its pursuit of nuclear energy, suggesting Iran will not heed a U.N. demand to stop enriching uranium.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its decision and, in the issue of nuclear energy, will continue its path powerfully ... and it will receive the sweet fruits of its efforts," Khamenei said on state television, Reuters reported.

His remarks came the day after Iran's armed forces tested surface-to-surface missiles Sunday in the second stage of war games near its border with Iraq, just days before a U.N. deadline to accept limits on its nuclear program or face possible sanctions.

The war games occurred as Iran again rejected any preconditions for further talks on giving up its uranium-enrichment program, which it says is meant for peaceful purposes.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran believes setting preconditions for negotiations will tighten the atmosphere for the two sides to reach a solution," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA).

"Why do they believe that the two parties should not negotiate in an open atmosphere?"

The U.N. Security Council has given Iran until the end of August to freeze its enrichment program or possibly face economic sanctions. Iran has said its response to incentives intended to persuade its leaders to accept strictures on its nuclear program would be ready by Tuesday.

Meanwhile, Iran's military launched the first stage of a planned series of war games on Saturday. The exercises will be conducted in 16 provinces in southern, southwestern and western parts of the country during the coming days, IRNA reported.

Brig. Gen. Kiumars Heidari, a military spokesman, told the IRNA that Iranian forces test-fired Iranian-made Saeqeh (Thunderbolt) missiles and surface-to-water missiles in southwestern Khuzestan Province, which adjoins Iraq.

Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and to test equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.

The new tests, in the wake of the Lebanon-Hezbollah fighting, seemed certain to create new tensions with the West. (Full story)

Iran's state-run television said the missile was built based on domestic know-how, although outside experts say much of the country's missile technology originated from other countries.

State-run TV showed video of 10 missiles being launched from mobile launching pads, The Associated Press reported.

Iran has said it is developing its nuclear technology for a civilian power program. But the United States and some European countries have accused Iranian leaders of working towards joining the exclusive club of countries that have nuclear weapons.

"If the Europeans' attitude is rational, the package of incentives can settle problems," Asefi said. "The package has still ambiguities and questions which should be answered."

He said Iran would cooperate with the nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and he predicted that the Europeans would not allow sanctions to be imposed on the oil-exporting nation. Such a move would result in EU countries "burning their bridges," he said.

"If other countries refrain from cooperating with Iran, they will sustain more damage," he said.

But Emily Lawrimore, a spokeswoman for the same White House that once branded Iran -- along with Iraq and North Korea -- members of the "axis of evil," said Sunday that the show of military force "serves to remind us of the dangers of its [Iran's] nuclear ambitions.

"Iran sits at the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism; we know that Iran is producing and developing delivery systems that could threaten our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe and eventually the United States itself," she said. "As the president has noted, Iran faces a clear choice."

The statement carried echoes of pronouncements from Washington in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, where about 130,000 U.S. troops are still battling a persistent insurgency and trying to quell a wave of sectarian violence.

In this case, however, Lawrimore said that if Iran failed to comply with the Security Council's mandate, "We will move quickly at the United Nations to impose sanctions," she said.

But Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel, speaker of Iran's Parliament, accused the United States of interfering in the affairs of other countries.

"The U.S. meddles in national affairs of other countries sometimes in the form of coup d'etat and sometimes under pretext of campaign against terrorism," he told the Parliament -- or Majlis -- on the 53rd anniversary anniversary of a U.S.- and British-sponsored coup d'etat that brought pro-Western Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to power.

"The U.S. has always raised a pretext for its interference. It meddled in Iraqi domestic affairs under a pretext to establish democracy and freedom in that country and the international campaign against terrorism," he said.

[RenegadeRows]

I tell you one thing, if it comes down to military action in Iran (I'm sure it will), it will be 10x worse than what's happening in Iraq. The whole country would be considered "insurgents", that is one radical nation to say the least.

[BioHazzard]

I suggest we send in Lamont, Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Obama, Kerry to have a nice heart to heart chat with the Ayatollah and appeal to Ayatollah's kind and humane senses.

I recommend MoveOn.org to arrange the event and rally its members to cheer them on.

I mean c'mon, isn't this what EVERYONE thinks is best?

So, what da ya think? Do you think Iran will disarm and turn into the Shangri-La of the Middle East, after the visit of these 'wise' men and women? Why not?

[klugman]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

I suggest we send in Lamont, Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Obama, Kerry to have a nice heart to heart chat with the Ayatollah and appeal to Ayatollah's kind and humane senses.

I recommend MoveOn.org to arrange the event and rally its members to cheer them on.

I mean c'mon, isn't this what EVERYONE thinks is best?

So, what da ya think? Do you think Iran will disarm and turn into the Shangri-La of the Middle East, after the visit of these 'wise' men and women? Why not?

You left out Jesse Jackson, Al "Sharpy" Sharpton and the international masters of conflic resolution...THE FRENCH!!!

[Nullifidian]

Step 1:

Make an official statement claiming a missile launch of any kind will be treated as an act of war, and that the US will take it as a threat of the use of nuclear weapons.

Step 2:

After the dumbasses launch their missile, launch stealth bombers loaded with more nukes than you can count

Step 3:

Accounce that Iran's launch constitutes a threat of nuclear force against the US and declare war.

Step 4:

3 minutes after the speech, watch the bombs drop and watch Iran turn into a sheet of glass.

[mp5man1]

I may not get a lot of support on this but I think we should help them on this. In fact we should send a few nukes over there right now so they can get a first hand look at ours. Not a long look but a look.

[Grunt76]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Step 1:

Make an official statement claiming a missile launch of any kind will be treated as an act of war, and that the US will take it as a threat of the use of nuclear weapons.

Step 2:

After the dumbasses launch their missile, launch stealth bombers loaded with more nukes than you can count

Step 3:

Accounce that Iran's launch constitutes a threat of nuclear force against the US and declare war.

Step 4:

3 minutes after the speech, watch the bombs drop and watch Iran turn into a sheet of glass.

You then would have a round billion people wanting to be martyrs for Islam.

And I find it pretty funny that U.N. resolutions are put out as being serious in that article. I mean, who does?

[The Colonel 333]

Originally Posted by BioHazzard

I suggest we send in Lamont, Jimmy Carter, Pelosi, Obama, Kerry to have a nice heart to heart chat with the Ayatollah and appeal to Ayatollah's kind and humane senses.

I recommend MoveOn.org to arrange the event and rally its members to cheer them on.

I mean c'mon, isn't this what EVERYONE thinks is best?

So, what da ya think? Do you think Iran will disarm and turn into the Shangri-La of the Middle East, after the visit of these 'wise' men and women? Why not?

Ahh yes another opportunity to shift the discussion away from the topic at hand and try to make the Democrats the bad guys. Just out of curiosity did you also think Ronald Regan was doing the wrong thing when he was trying to negotiate with the Soviet union to end the cold war and stop the nuclear arms race. If I remember correctly his attempt to "appeal to" Gorbachevs "kind and humane senses" worked rather well.

Look I don't think that trying to be diplomatic on this issue is going to be the only answer to helping us avoid a conflict with Iran. I also know there are many tones you can take when negotiating with someone. I will not regard attempts to talk to Iran as foolish.

I also know that trying to turn Iran into a "sheet of glass" is not as easy as it sounds. We may end going to war with Iran over this issue among many others. Just know that when we do the only way to trully be sucessfull agianst them will be to launch a large scale ground invasion along with stategic airstrikes, and that my friends is going to suck. Be prepared for the draft to be inacted and also be prepared to go sign up at a military recruiting station. Because nice and neat precision bombing will only delay there nuclear ambisions not completelt destoy it.
I am willing to exaust every option before it comes to that.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by klugman

You left out Jesse Jackson, Al "Sharpy" Sharpton and the international masters of conflic resolution...THE FRENCH!!!

Jesse 'never had a real job in my life' Jackson is too busy enjoying the largesse his Rainbow criminal racket has extorted from corporate America. Jesse is too busy enjoying the fat cat life these days.


Sharpy has been turning his attention to the plague of 'gangsterism' mentality hurting the blacks. So Sharpy is actually making sense these days.

[BioHazzard]

Originally Posted by The Colonel 333

Ahh yes another opportunity to shift the discussion away from the topic at hand and try to make the Democrats the bad guys. Just out of curiosity did you also think Ronald Regan was doing the wrong thing when he was trying to negotiate with the Soviet union to end the cold war and stop the nuclear arms race. If I remember correctly his attempt to "appeal to" Gorbachevs "kind and humane senses" worked rather well.

Look I don't think that trying to be diplomatic on this issue is going to be the only answer to helping us avoid a conflict with Iran. I also know there are many tones you can take when negotiating with someone. I will not regard attempts to talk to Iran as foolish.

I also know that trying to turn Iran into a "sheet of glass" is not as easy as it sounds. We may end going to war with Iran over this issue among many others. Just know that when we do the only way to trully be sucessfull agianst them will be to launch a large scale ground invasion along with stategic airstrikes, and that my friends is going to suck. Be prepared for the draft to be inacted and also be prepared to go sign up at a military recruiting station. Because nice and neat precision bombing will only delay there nuclear ambisions not completelt destoy it.
I am willing to exaust every option before it comes to that.

Sorry dude, you haven't been paying attention to Lamont's foreign policy. Some homework is in order.

Lamont's foreign policy has already been talked about in another thread. Ronald Reagan's successful foreign policy, in contrast to Democrat's complete and total failure, was also mentioned in that thread.

I guess you missed those posts, again. You have quite a record of being a day late and a dollar short. Go read some of the more recent threads. I am not going to recap yesterday's news for you.


I have one thing to say tho.

Originally Posted by The Colonel 333

.... Just out of curiosity did you also think Ronald Regan was doing the wrong thing when he was trying to negotiate with the Soviet union to end the cold war and stop the nuclear arms race. If I remember correctly his attempt to "appeal to" Gorbachevs "kind and humane senses" worked rather well....

If this is what you think is how Reagan defeated Communism and the Evil Empire, then you can save your breathe and my breathe. It is obvious that you have a lot of homework to do, and I don't have the slightest interest in educating people for free. lol Your claim that you are 'not new to politics' has been proven to be irrelevant by your misperception of how the Cold War was fought and won.

Either you go to GoogleLand and seek enlightenment, or feel free to hold onto your belief. All the same to me.

In the interest of forum harmony, allow me to apologize if I have offended you with my blunt statements of facts here.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by Nullifidian

Step 1:

Make an official statement claiming a missile launch of any kind will be treated as an act of war, and that the US will take it as a threat of the use of nuclear weapons.

Step 2:

After the dumbasses launch their missile, launch stealth bombers loaded with more nukes than you can count

Step 3:

Accounce that Iran's launch constitutes a threat of nuclear force against the US and declare war.

Step 4:

3 minutes after the speech, watch the bombs drop and watch Iran turn into a sheet of glass.

Step 5:

Drill through glass to reach oil.

Step 6:

Profit.

[jrkarp]

Originally Posted by The Colonel 333

Ahh yes another opportunity to shift the discussion away from the topic at hand and try to make the Democrats the bad guys. Just out of curiosity did you also think Ronald Regan was doing the wrong thing when he was trying to negotiate with the Soviet union to end the cold war and stop the nuclear arms race. If I remember correctly his attempt to "appeal to" Gorbachevs "kind and humane senses" worked rather well.

The Soviets did not believe that killing Americans was in the service of God and that if they died killing Americans they would go to heaven and bang virgins for all eternity.

It's hard to negotiate with people who believe that slitting your throat would be doing God a service.

[The Colonel 333]

Oh boy this one is going to be easy. I will start from the end of your post here and work my way back.

"In the interest of forum harmony, allow me to apologize if I have offended you with my blunt statements of facts here."

Well you only stated one fact in your entire response. The rest is merely opinion. You do know the difference between fact and opinion. I'm sure you do. You know fact is something you can prove, opinion is a belief, sometimes, based on facts.

"Lamont's foreign policy has already been talked about in another thread"

There is your one and only fact. Hmmm, nope not offended at all.

"If this is what you think is how Reagan defeated Communism and the Evil Empire, then you can save your breathe and my breathe. It is obvious that you have a lot of homework to do, and I don't have the slightest interest in educating people for free. lol Your claim that you are 'not new to politics' has been proven to be irrelevant by your misperception of how the Cold War was fought and won.

Either you go to GoogleLand and seek enlightenment, or feel free to hold onto your belief. All the same to me."

Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been on the Reagen statement. You see I was merely trying to point out that Reagen did negotiate with the Soviet Union and it did help I can see now I left out the key word HELP. So I will follow your advice and go to google right now. Type in "did Reagen negotiate with the soviet union". Suprise, suprise look at all the links that confirm my statement. Wow there is a wealth of information out there. Some are merely political opinion and some are factual accounts of real events.
Here is one from a Conservative organization you might be inclined to believe.

"After an initial period of disorganization, the Reagan Administration, over the course of 1982 and early 1983, established in a series of highly classified national security directives its fundamental Cold War policy, which formally ensconced Reagan’s own beliefs and served as the single, unifying framework for the administration’s approach throughout the rest of Reagan’s presidency. Those directives set out a few basic objectives. The first was to “contain and reverse the expansion of Soviet control and military presence throughout the world.” The second was “[t]o foster, if possible in concert with our allies, restraint in Soviet military spending, discourage Soviet adventurism, and weaken the Soviet alliance system by forcing the USSR to bear the brunt of its economic shortcomings, and to encourage long-term liberalizing and nationalist tendencies within the Soviet Union and allied countries.” The adminis*tration would aim to promote “the process of change in the Soviet Union toward a more pluralistic politi*cal and economic system in which the power of the privileged ruling elite is gradually reduced.” The third objective was to negotiate with the Soviets"
President Reagan’s Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
"The outcome of Reagan’s meeting with Gor*bachev at Reykjavík in October 1986 has long puz*zled journalists and scholars. The transcripts from Reykjavík make clear that the course of the meet*ings was largely shaped by Reagan’s nuclear aboli*tionism and his conviction that that goal was close at hand. At the meeting, Gorbachev set out a num*ber of important concessions that suddenly made the U.S. delegation believe that agreements on deep reductions in strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons were possible. After a day and a half of haggling between Reagan and Gorbachev, Reagan proposed that they abolish all nuclear weapons. Gorbachev agreed, and so did Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze".
President Reagan’s Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
President Reagan’s Legacy and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy
by Paul Lettow
Heritage Lecture #953

July 20, 2006


Now I know it is easier for you to assume I know nothing of politics rather than argue the merits of any statement I make but I will continue to prove you wrong on each and every low blow you try to land. Yes it is easier to assume I think the only way the cold war ended was through negotiations, but come on BIO nobody is that dumb.
I think you are also intentionally misreading what I said, in order to take a cheap shot at me.

" Just out of curiosity did you also think Ronald Regan was doing the wrong thing when he was trying to negotiate with the Soviet union to end the cold war and stop the nuclear arms race. If I remember correctly his attempt to "appeal to" Gorbachevs "kind and humane senses" worked rather well."

There is my Question. You were trying to make fun of numerous Democrats because many of them are calling for the use of diplomacy and negotiations with Iran. I was simply asking did you feel the same way about Reagen when he advocated or used diplomacy with the Soviet Union. I thought was an easy one to answer. Just so there is no more misinterpreting my post about negotiations with IRAN

"Look I don't think that trying to be diplomatic on this issue is going to be the only answer to helping us avoid a conflict with Iran. I also know there are many tones you can take when negotiating with someone. I will not regard attempts to talk to Iran as foolish"

Now I am off to dig up the discussions on Lamont and see if there is anything of value in them or if it's just a bunch of low blows and partisan talking point one liners.

[The Colonel 333]

Originally Posted by jrkarp

The Soviets did not believe that killing Americans was in the service of God and that if they died killing Americans they would go to heaven and bang virgins for all eternity.

It's hard to negotiate with people who believe that slitting your throat would be doing God a service.

True, very true.
I also rember a lot of people saying that negotiating with communist was a waist of time also. Negotiating with them may yeild nothing. But I think it is one option we should try while we are doing many other things. Please don't assume that words like "negotiate" or "being diplomatic"
equals being soft or nice. That is just what the partisan hacks want you to believe. There are many tones you can take when negotiating with someone